Funny how conservatives are directly fighting against the conservative-led, Scalia-penned decision less than 5 years ago....

Justice Scalia’s decision in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller:

'nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.'

The ruling also allows limitations on ownership of 'dangerous and unusual' weapons that are not in 'common use' — like, for example, assault weapons.

*****

The NRA, meanwhile, is acting like the gun 'nuts' that so many gun owners are not. The extremity of their position on some of these matters is ludicrous.

The opposition to universal background checks is mystifying. Even given the tenuous 'right' to own as many guns as you want, the matter of tracking the purchase and sale of guns is utterly in the public interest.

The opposition to universal background checks is mystifying. Even given the tenuous 'right' to own as many guns as you want, the matter of tracking the purchase and sale of guns is utterly in the public interest.

How do you do a background check on a criminal with an illegal weapon?

strange how the left is silent on interfering with the rights of illegal gun owners, yet are rolling right over the rights of legal gun owners.

or, put simply, what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

well all weapons particulary guns are dangerous......unusual and uncommon applied to AR15's??? really?? every time I am at the range I see some law abiding citizen target shooting with an AR. it's very common and not an unusual weapon....

i fired one last week...it had the dreaded thirty round clip....i shot a tight pattern with iron sights at 100 yards...sweet!!! nobody died, no crimes were committed....none of the other people at the range have shown up in the local police reports....

first of all with the gun thing.....not just republicans....dems in the senate won't allow a ban to get voted on and they control the senate. democrats control the white house and senate...republicans have minority influence

secondly...rifles and "assault" rifles....count for very few criminal deaths each year, fewer than by blunt instrument like a hammer....inconvenient truth.

we have a serious people problem in this country....if we go to the root of our poeple problem murders and violent behavior go down....

punishing law abiding gun owners is a feel good reaction by people unwilling to acknowkedge this nation's people problem.....

we absolutley need to require that ALL gun purchases and tranfers be subject to a criminal background check....AND that mentally disturbed people be prohibited from owning firearms.....

funny how we focus on big gulps, guns and trans fats but never on people and their behavior......it's the PC thing....it goes against reason and accountability.....

The opposition to universal background checks is mystifying. Even given the tenuous 'right' to own as many guns as you want, the matter of tracking the purchase and sale of guns is utterly in the public interest.

How do you do a background check on a criminal with an illegal weapon?

strange how the left is silent on interfering with the rights of illegal gun owners, yet are rolling right over the rights of legal gun owners.

or, put simply, what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Well, if the weapon is indeed illegal, than possession itself is a criminal act, so your first sentence is redundant to a fault.

Conceptually, the only guns we even know about are the legal ones, so your second sentence doesn't make sense. [If a 'legal gun owner' or 'legal owner of guns' should register as a hunter, then why not register their guns, too...? No rights are 'infringed' in such a way.]

(Example: We can own more than one car without registering them all, as long as they're titled. Once they're brought out on the road, however, the public interest is at stake.)

First, figure out which right is being infringed and how, and then maybe your question can be answered.

The opposition to universal background checks is mystifying. Even given the tenuous 'right' to own as many guns as you want, the matter of tracking the purchase and sale of guns is utterly in the public interest.

How do you do a background check on a criminal with an illegal weapon?

strange how the left is silent on interfering with the rights of illegal gun owners, yet are rolling right over the rights of legal gun owners.

or, put simply, what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

How do yo know they are legal potential gun owners unless you do the background check? And there are lots of laws criminalizing the illegal possession of guns. Lots. But you don't really care about reality of the situation. And no right is unlimited in its impact, especially a right that can so readily impact the rights of others.

It should be a problem that gun owners may wish to keep private what kind and how many guns they might own...much less who uses, buys and sells them without apprpriate licensure.

Why is it anyones business what kind or how many guns one might own? For law abiding citizens who legally purchase guns, why does it matter what they own or how many they own? For them to legally purchase said guns means those guns are legal to own.

It amazes me how often the left goes to the gun control well, trying to convince us that they need to probe legal gun openers, limit types of guns for our own good, while completely ignoring illegal gun owners.

something tells me this is more about effectively eliminating our rights to protect ourselves than this supposed need for legal gun owners to prove their legality in the face of no probable cause.

It amazes me how often the left goes to the gun control well, trying to convince us that they need to probe legal gun openers, limit types of guns for our own good, while completely ignoring illegal gun owners.

something tells me this is more about effectively eliminating our rights to protect ourselves than this supposed need for legal gun owners to prove their legality in the face of no probable cause.

Nobody is ignoring illegal gun owners...unless you count the reductions in police at the local level due to lack of public funding.

The 'right to protect ourselves' ultimately precludes owning a gun. There are laws about how to protect oneself while using a gun.

How else for legal gun owners to prove themselves legal but to check in with law enforcement?

It amazes me how often the left goes to the gun control well, trying to convince us that they need to probe legal gun openers, limit types of guns for our own good, while completely ignoring illegal gun owners.

something tells me this is more about effectively eliminating our rights to protect ourselves than this supposed need for legal gun owners to prove their legality in the face of no probable cause.

Nobody is ignoring illegal gun owners...unless you count the reductions in police at the local level due to lack of public funding.

The 'right to protect ourselves' ultimately precludes owning a gun. There are laws about how to protect oneself while using a gun.

How else for legal gun owners to prove themselves legal but to check in with law enforcement?

For law abiding citizens who legally purchase guns, why does it matter
whatthey own...?

You know the answer, you just don't agree with it.

Simple. Some weapons are destructive enough to go beyond any legitimate self-defense purpose. If getting rid of them reduces the probability of harm, it may be worthwhile.

You might as well advocate for full legalization of fully automatic M16s, howitzers, operational flame-throwers, tanks and even military drones....... at least, with the question in that form.

You're not paying attention. If it was LEGALLY purchased (which is what i posted...but you know that) then it doesn't matter. Are fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks and drones legal to purchase? No they are not. I was referring to LEGALLY purchased firearms.